NOW I can debate the AV1611's

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just received my black-leather Hendrickson 1611 KJV replica. The only difference is the "font" which is New Times Roman, for easier reading.

    I highly recommend it. It is the only modern printed version of the 1611 now available.

    The margin notes are the originals (and so is the apocrypha). So, now I can debate with those AV1611's with their very own Bible now!

    That ought to ruffle some feathers! [​IMG] :D
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip, perhaps you could ask them for scriptural support for their view. That usually shuts them up rather quickly, or they change the subject. I've asked for scriptural support for KJVOism on this board nearly 40 times. No KJVOist has ever provided any.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sadly, I've asked the same thing about 40 times. I've also asked: "what was the perfect English Bible the KJV replaced and why did it need to be replaced?" They remain VERY silent on that one.

    I would even accept Biblical support in the 1611 KJV. [​IMG]

    What I really want to see is someone claiming to be an AV1611 and then I will quote from the REAL 1611. That will irritate some. [​IMG]
     
  4. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I have the Nelson av1611 replica. Is there any difference between the two?
     
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalm 101:5 Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no idea. I had heard that this was the only one in print; obviously, that little tid-bit of information was wrong. Maybe one of them is now out of print. I dunno?

    I would imagine that we have the same book. My ISBN number is: 1-56563-162-5. If you can send me yours we can compare them on Amazon.com.

    You have my interest now. I may have gotten a bad deal.

    The only thing I am not extremely thrilled about (and it is very minor) is the Roman Numeral chapters. It makes me exercise my ole brain too much, although I realize that was the way it was.

    My only wish would be that someone needs to make a "slim-line" large print version.
     
  7. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    It may be out of print by now. I got mine about two years ago. It is a red hardcover. I'm not at home so I cannot look at the ISBN right now.
     
  8. Exile

    Exile
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the Nelson 1611 but not the Hendrickson edition (yet). I think the main difference is that the Nelson version did not contain the translators' footnotes.
     
  9. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Mine does. Actually, they are side-notes - on the sides of the columns instead of on the bottom.
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same as the Hendrickson, TC. It is probably just another good replica. Sounds like the cover may be the only difference. Yours is Hardback and mine is leather (cheap leather at that--sort of like a gift Bible).

    Yours is probably actually better to study and read.

    The leather cover and thin pages make it somewhat hard to read and search; especially with my "over 40" eyes.
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I guess it shows what they think about scripture. Not much.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had both for awile. I never
    saw any difference. They both had the
    same error where the third page of Micah
    has "Ioel" at the top ;)

    Note the most AV1611 believe the
    real authorized version of 1611
    (the 1611 edition) is a substandard Bible
    for it contains the satanic Apocrypha
    and the doubt causing translator margin
    notes.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I had heard that this was the only one in print; obviously, that little tid-bit of information was wrong. Maybe one of them is now out of print. I dunno?

    I would imagine that we have the same book. My ISBN number is: 1-56563-162-5.
    </font>[/QUOTE]The Thomas Nelson edition of the 1611 is now out of print. I have both the Thomas Nelson 1611,
    and the Hendrickson 1611. I also have a copy of the 1611 in the original Gothic print that was printed by Greyden Press in 2000. The Thomas Nelson & Hendrickson editions do leave out the 35 pages of "The Genealogies of Holy Scriptures" that was in the original 1611 and the page with the royal coat of arms [with the lion and unicorn]. So far, I haven't found any differences in the text of the three.

    All three editions keep some of the original
    printing errors in the 1611: the heading of Chapter III of Micah with the incorrect heading "Joel," a double "the the" at Ezekiel 23:23, "aud immediately" instead of "and immediately" at Acts 3:7, "co" instead of "to"
    at Acts 20:26, and the added 21 words at Exodus 14:10.
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pfalmes CI.5-7 (KJV1611):
    Whoso priuily slandereth his
    neighbor, him will I cut off : him that
    hath an high looke, and a proud heart,
    will not I suffer.
    6 Mine eyes shall be vpon the faithful
    of the land , that they may dwell
    with me : he that walketh ||in a perfect
    way, he shall serue me.
    7 He that worketh deceit, shall not
    dwell within my house : he that telleth
    lies +shall not tarie in my sight.


    sidenote showing a variant possible
    translation: ||or, perfect in the way

    sidenote showing a variant in the OT
    sources available to the translator:
    +Heb. shall not be established.

    Yes this book is dangerous. It shows that
    even the King James Version was translated
    from sources that varried. IMHO any translation
    that fails to have translator footnotes
    is a hypocritical Bible. Unfortunately many
    KJV1769 versions/edition have no translator
    notes. [​IMG]
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
  16. pcs1991

    pcs1991
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip where did you get your AV1611 from?
     
  17. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    While you're looking at your AV 1611s, please see the translators' marginal note for Psalm 12:7. That's what makes the KJVOs' argument for this verse's referring to God's words so amusing. Just goes to show that those who use that argument are merely following the Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller "party line".
     
  19. Dogsbody

    Dogsbody
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    "While you're looking at your AV 1611s, please see the translators' marginal note for Psalm 12:7. That's what makes the KJVOs' argument for this verse's referring to God's words so amusing. Just goes to show that those who use that argument are merely following the Wilkinson-Ray-Fuller "party line"."

    Would you please quote that matginal note? I don't have an AV1611 and would be interested to see it. Thank you much!
     
  20. stevec

    stevec
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try: Christian Books.com
     

Share This Page

Loading...